Read about the Great Fleets Across America
Subscribe

School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums
School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 General Interest
 Enter Forum: General Interest
 Gasoline Powered Conventionals
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

RichBusman
Advanced Member

448 Posts

Posted - 09/15/2011 :  9:09:35 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Curious to get your opinions on gasoline engines powering full size conventional buses again. We will be seeing this offered on two of the large bus manufacturers shortly (unless plans change before then).

Gas engines will offer big advantages, such as no major emissions equipment, easy cold starts, plenty of heat, less expensive fuel, and fuel availability everywhere, cheaper filters, plus a hefty weight advantage.

Diesel engines offer much better fuel economy, longer oil change intervals, better torque curve, better resale value, and historically a longer lifespan.

If a gas engine is priced say $10,000-15,000 cheaper than diesel, I wonder how many operators will look at going that direction.

Here are some calculations based on $3.999 diesel / $3.599 gas, with diesel at 8 MPG and gas at 5.5 MPG. Figuring on 150,000 miles driven.

Diesel Gallons = 18750
Gas Gallons = 27272.727272727272
Diesel Price = 74981.25
Standard Gas Price = 98154.54545454546
Diesel Savings = 23173.295454545456

http://www.josephsunny.com/finance/diesel.html

Fastback
Top Member

897 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  04:42:45 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Gas? I don't think so.
We are very pleased with our 2012 42 passenger C2. It has 3,500 miles on it so far and has averaged 10.6 mpg and still has 3 bars out of 4 on the DEF guage.
It has a proven drivetrain, will easily go over 500 miles on a tank of fuel and the Cummins oil filter costs us all of $6.00.

Why yes, the ORIGinal CHARGER is a Fastback
Go to Top of Page

bluebirdvision
Top Member

USA
987 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  05:18:17 AM  Show Profile  Click to see bluebirdvision's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
No resale
Less MPG
Not interested

I think there will come a time when operations are forced to keep their buses longer, therefore increasing vehicle mileage, not really interested in rebuilding a gas engine. Stick with the Cummins engines. As Fastback said, it is proven.

Shane Kirley
New York Bus Sales Delivery Driver. (I know its not much, but its a start)


Facebook Page: Blue Bird Corporation Fans
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_212311114614&ap=1



Edited by - bluebirdvision on 09/16/2011 05:18:53 AM
Go to Top of Page

bus724
Top Member

USA
1609 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  4:40:11 PM  Show Profile  Visit bus724's Homepage  Send bus724 an AOL message  Reply with Quote
I can see benefits for some operators, but it really depends on the situation. I think the best thing manufacturers can do is offer multiple options.
Go to Top of Page

YellowBox
Advanced Member

Puerto Rico (USA)
254 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  6:14:26 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I will welcome this option with open arms. It will be an OPTION for particular situations. Here we do not have an established DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID distribution infrastructure, neither for PROPANE. Diesel engines are more complicated and have now a mayor operational cost than ever. ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL has brought us ULTRA LOW MILES PER GALLON on both our OLDER and NEWER DIESEL TRUCKS. My 2007 TRUCK with an HINO DIESEL ENGINE used to get re-fueled every 2 1/2 weeks with the previous DIESEL formulation. Now with ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL that re-fueling time period shrinked to EVERY WEEK RE-FUELING. So ULSD hurts our DIESEL'S MPG capabilities.

We also got both older V10 TRITON powered F550 and 6.0 POWERSTROKE powered F550 and I like the V10 GAS units over the DIESEL ones any time any day.

A FORD F-750 with the 6.8L V10 will be $8,000 to $9,000 less than the F-750 with a CUMMINS DIESEL. That migh bring some savings for MUNICIPALITIES if they buy a good amount of units. And the GASOLINE ENGINE means no need to deal with SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION and all the INFRASTRUCTURE of the SCR system (wich adds weight to the vehicle)no DIESEL PERTICULATE FILTER, no DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER REGENERATIONS (wich consumes fuel), no choking the engine with EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) and "ADVANCED EGR", no DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID and DEF TANK needed, no ELECTRICAL ISSUES when the SCR starts to throw CODES, no ULTRA LOW QUALITY DIESEL- I mean ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL-(DIESEL here is 13 cents per liter higher than PREMIUM GASOLINE) Diesel Engine repair, overhaul and service is more EXPENSIVE. Modern GASOLINE ENGINES are stout performers and are advanced, with no need for REBUILT for a large period of time.

Any "advantage" the DIESEL might have over the GAS engine is off-set by the complication of modern diesel engine operational costs.

Our 2012 MAXXFORCE ADVANCED EGR DIESEL truck just gets 4.4 MPG and allways is trowing codes for WATER ON FUEL. Temperature is always high. DPF temperature rises a lot setting the DPF on regen A LOT. Skip the REGEN and the truck will shut down for a while (and they trashed SCR for the POWER DE-RATE for a nearly empty DEF tank!!!) I hate this truck.

DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER replacement is EXPENSIVE....Cooking your engine with all that EXCESSIVE EGR reduces your engine life-span...NOT GOOD.

Now we will see if that V10 gets 5 to 7 MPG well it will be side by side with the DIESELS....(now someone will say it is getting 14 mpg with an E.P.A 2010 DIESEL....yeah right)

So I welcome the FORD V10 6.8L engine on a SCHOOL BUS.
NO SCR
NO DEF
NO DEF TANK
NO SCR INFRASTRUCTURE
NO EGR
NO ELECTRONICAL ISSUES
NO ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL (ULTRA LOW QUALITY- LESS MPG FOR IT-DIESEL)
NO HIGHER FUEL PRICES
NO SCR SYSTEM ADDED WEIGHT.

Go to Top of Page

C.HARDY
Advanced Member

338 Posts

Posted - 09/17/2011 :  7:12:47 PM  Show Profile  Click to see C.HARDY's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
No gas here. Parts are too hard to find and the cost of mpg doesnt add up over the life cycle. I dont operate any buses with emission controls so I'm not real familiar with the problems. I will be very surprised if a gas engine in a full size bus will do any better than about 4 or 5 mpg especially with this wonderful ethanol gas these days. How do you figure no electrical issues, higher fuel prices, or egr? I would imagine the electronics on a 2012 gas engine will be a nightmare. You say there are 23000 dollars saved during a life cycle. I will say that proves it right there. I doubt anyone will save that much in repairs running a gas engine especially when the gas engine's life is basically over at 150000.

"Hardybusman"

Edited by - C.HARDY on 09/17/2011 7:15:57 PM
Go to Top of Page

MorrisV2
Senior Member

53 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2011 :  2:29:36 PM  Show Profile  Visit MorrisV2's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by YellowBox

I will welcome this option with open arms. It will be an OPTION for particular situations. Here we do not have an established DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID distribution infrastructure, neither for PROPANE. Diesel engines are more complicated and have now a mayor operational cost than ever. ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL has brought us ULTRA LOW MILES PER GALLON on both our OLDER and NEWER DIESEL TRUCKS. My 2007 TRUCK with an HINO DIESEL ENGINE used to get re-fueled every 2 1/2 weeks with the previous DIESEL formulation. Now with ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL that re-fueling time period shrinked to EVERY WEEK RE-FUELING. So ULSD hurts our DIESEL'S MPG capabilities.

We also got both older V10 TRITON powered F550 and 6.0 POWERSTROKE powered F550 and I like the V10 GAS units over the DIESEL ones any time any day.

A FORD F-750 with the 6.8L V10 will be $8,000 to $9,000 less than the F-750 with a CUMMINS DIESEL. That migh bring some savings for MUNICIPALITIES if they buy a good amount of units. And the GASOLINE ENGINE means no need to deal with SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION and all the INFRASTRUCTURE of the SCR system (wich adds weight to the vehicle)no DIESEL PERTICULATE FILTER, no DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER REGENERATIONS (wich consumes fuel), no choking the engine with EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) and "ADVANCED EGR", no DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID and DEF TANK needed, no ELECTRICAL ISSUES when the SCR starts to throw CODES, no ULTRA LOW QUALITY DIESEL- I mean ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL-(DIESEL here is 13 cents per liter higher than PREMIUM GASOLINE) Diesel Engine repair, overhaul and service is more EXPENSIVE. Modern GASOLINE ENGINES are stout performers and are advanced, with no need for REBUILT for a large period of time.

Any "advantage" the DIESEL might have over the GAS engine is off-set by the complication of modern diesel engine operational costs.

Our 2012 MAXXFORCE ADVANCED EGR DIESEL truck just gets 4.4 MPG and allways is trowing codes for WATER ON FUEL. Temperature is always high. DPF temperature rises a lot setting the DPF on regen A LOT. Skip the REGEN and the truck will shut down for a while (and they trashed SCR for the POWER DE-RATE for a nearly empty DEF tank!!!) I hate this truck.

DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER replacement is EXPENSIVE....Cooking your engine with all that EXCESSIVE EGR reduces your engine life-span...NOT GOOD.

Now we will see if that V10 gets 5 to 7 MPG well it will be side by side with the DIESELS....(now someone will say it is getting 14 mpg with an E.P.A 2010 DIESEL....yeah right)

So I welcome the FORD V10 6.8L engine on a SCHOOL BUS.
NO SCR
NO DEF
NO DEF TANK
NO SCR INFRASTRUCTURE
NO EGR
NO ELECTRONICAL ISSUES
NO ULTRA LOW SULPHUR DIESEL (ULTRA LOW QUALITY- LESS MPG FOR IT-DIESEL)
NO HIGHER FUEL PRICES
NO SCR SYSTEM ADDED WEIGHT.





VERY WELL PUT.

I would only add to that list, WINTER STARTS.

Gasoline engines are getting better and better with mileage ratings.

We in the northern climates would look very closely at Gasoline options again.
Go to Top of Page

YellowBox
Advanced Member

Puerto Rico (USA)
254 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2011 :  2:54:54 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I sure wish FORD touches this 6.8L V10 with its ECO-BOOST wand...An ECO-BOOST version of that V10 will be a nice thing. Or that the rumors of a 7.0L V8 ECO-BOOST light / meduim duty truck engine become true.

That 6.8L V10 can be combined with an plug-in hybrid electric system also....

Edited by - YellowBox on 09/18/2011 2:59:05 PM
Go to Top of Page

Fastback
Top Member

897 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2011 :  04:02:09 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
UMMMMMM, Gas engines have had EGR since the early 70s


Why yes, the ORIGinal CHARGER is a Fastback
Go to Top of Page

bluebirdvision
Top Member

USA
987 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2011 :  05:11:22 AM  Show Profile  Click to see bluebirdvision's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by YellowBox

That 6.8L V10 can be combined with an plug-in hybrid electric system also....



You want simplicity, but suggest using it as a hybrid electric, electric vehicles are overcomplicated, and you'll never see any savings because of the extra cost of the vehicle and battery replacement. No thanks!

Shane Kirley
New York Bus Sales Delivery Driver. (I know its not much, but its a start)


Facebook Page: Blue Bird Corporation Fans
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_212311114614&ap=1


Go to Top of Page

C.HARDY
Advanced Member

338 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2011 :  5:45:22 PM  Show Profile  Click to see C.HARDY's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
The old 7.0L 429 was a real work horse. I guess offering gas as an option is fine but I think there is a good reason why they faded out in the first place. Diesel is the way to go for a large bus.

"Hardybusman"
Go to Top of Page

YellowBox
Advanced Member

Puerto Rico (USA)
254 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2011 :  1:59:13 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by C.HARDY

The old 7.0L 429 was a real work horse. I guess offering gas as an option is fine but I think there is a good reason why they faded out in the first place. Diesel is the way to go for a large bus.



Yes that 429 V8 was a real work horse and it still is. Even older 391 V8 still working here while DIESELS from that era 8.2L, 6V92,8V92,V636, 1106 etc...are long gone....

Offering a GASOLINE ENGINE option is good if you look at it beyond the MPG debate. Technology will bring GASOLINE engine to a better MPG range in the future.

If the GASOLINE ENGINE powered TYPE C School Bus became a true fact, I want to have all facts.

I like DIESEL ENGINES, but with all the stuff E.P.A has over them is not easy...
Go to Top of Page

bwest
Administrator

United States
2184 Posts

Posted - 09/27/2011 :  2:06:53 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Interesting thread you guys have going here. I normally hang out over in the "garage" but someone told me you were discussing this here. I have a propane vision and we love it! Don't know about Canada but around here (southern IL) it is not hard to find a place to fuel the propane engine. I will say it is harder than gasoline but not too much harder than diesel. I completly agree with Yellow Box on what he points out about the diesel engines. I went to diesel collage right out of high school and wanting everything diesel. But no more! Just as you say Nixon's EPA has screwed all that up!

Bryan
Go to Top of Page

bill@arps
New Member

2 Posts

Posted - 03/26/2013 :  09:29:41 AM  Show Profile  Visit bill@arps's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I also welcome the addition of offering gas engines to the school bus market. We have a mixed fleet, and have already needed to have DPFs cleaned, in addition to regens needed. On our newest unit, we have less than 4,800 miles, and we have had to put in 8 gallons of DEF to date. Due to the complexity of the emissions systems, the anticipated lower selling price of a gas powered bus (time will tell how much lower), the lower cost for lubrication (much smaller oil sump) and less expensive parts pricing, I think it is worth considering for fleet use. The main reason gasoline was eliminated from the school bus market years ago was due to liability after a tragic school bus accident/fire. No chassis manufacturer wanted the exposure. Since that time, fuel tanks had safety cages installed, as well as having them mounted between the frame rails, which greatly diminishes the chance of a ruptured fuel tank. Todays gas engines are far more reliable and efficient than they were "back in the day" when carburetors, ignition points/condensers, distributor caps/rotors, etc., were the norm. For all of these reasons, it makes sense to look at and crunch all of the numbers before making a decision for any given fleet. I think it is a good option to make available to those of us in the school bus industry.
Go to Top of Page

JRob
Senior Member

176 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2013 :  03:51:53 AM  Show Profile  Visit JRob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Curious as to what range and fill rate you were expecting? 4800 miles & 8 gallons is 600 mpg. That is at or better than the rates advertised prior to SCR introduction.

The conversion from gas to diesel in the school bus pre-dates the liability concerns. The Carrollton, KY crash occurred in 1988 and dieselization was pretty much established at that point. The change to diesel engines came primarily because there was an advantage in fuel price (particularly in the 70's with the gas shortage) and the longevity of the diesel engine vs. gas. International probably had as much to do with the industry conversion as any one entity. They pushed diesel heavily as they transitioned away from manufacturing gas engines in the 70's & early 80's.
Go to Top of Page

bill@arps
New Member

2 Posts

Posted - 03/27/2013 :  09:06:37 AM  Show Profile  Visit bill@arps's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Hi JRob,
Thanks for your post. I really didn't know what to expect for a fill rate, as this was our first SCR equipped bus. I do prefer the SCR option to I/C's internal engine emission solution,as this both compromises fuel economy, power, and possibly engine longevity.
Looking back, you are right - I did see an increase in diesel use over gas prior to the Carrollton,KY crash. I was actually away from the industry during that time frame, and re-entered it in 1990, where we had both gas and diesel in our fleet. So, you may be right about the main reason for the transition to diesel. My acceptance of a gas powered conventional school bus offering still stands, however, as school districts are strapped for money, and again, depending on the price point of the gas offering, as well as expected total vehicle mileage and operating conditions of one's fleet, will determine the efficacy of going one way or the other. Choices are always good, as no two operational environments are identical. I am still assessing gas, diesel, and even propane for our next school bus purchase.
Go to Top of Page

AllAmerican
Active Member

17 Posts

Posted - 03/30/2013 :  08:22:41 AM  Show Profile  Visit AllAmerican's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Our district has purchased propane visions for 2013 and 2014. So far, they are happy with them. The International Maxxforce engines have been a nightmare in the IC's that they have.

What I wonder is, who will supply the gas engines if IC, Freightliner and Hino (if their bus hits the market) offer a gas option? Now that Ford is supplying the engine for the propane Vision, will they also supply Freightliner and IC? The IH 345 corn binder is long gone, and GM is out of the medium truck business. That doesn't leave much to choose from, and in my opinion, I don't see a big comeback of the gasoline engine in the bus market.
Go to Top of Page

bbarr
Active Member

21 Posts

Posted - 04/01/2013 :  1:15:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit bbarr's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bluebirdvision

quote:
Originally posted by YellowBox

That 6.8L V10 can be combined with an plug-in hybrid electric system also....



You want simplicity, but suggest using it as a hybrid electric, electric vehicles are overcomplicated, and you'll never see any savings because of the extra cost of the vehicle and battery replacement. No thanks!




I want to know what is overly complicated about an electric vehicle? ROI numbers from fleets using full electric is roughly 2-2.5 years with no grant money.
Go to Top of Page

DerekSmith
New Member

4 Posts

Posted - 04/01/2013 :  1:52:19 PM  Show Profile  Visit DerekSmith's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bus724

I can see benefits for some operators, but it really depends on the situation. I think the best thing manufacturers can do is offer multiple options.



Agreed, but I think gas-powered is simply a thing of the past. More and more firms are switching, and the divergence in fuel prices over the last year has forced their hands. This was our highest average price ever.
Go to Top of Page

RichBusman
Advanced Member

448 Posts

Posted - 04/01/2013 :  3:12:25 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bbarr

quote:
Originally posted by bluebirdvision

quote:
Originally posted by YellowBox

That 6.8L V10 can be combined with an plug-in hybrid electric system also....



You want simplicity, but suggest using it as a hybrid electric, electric vehicles are overcomplicated, and you'll never see any savings because of the extra cost of the vehicle and battery replacement. No thanks!




I want to know what is overly complicated about an electric vehicle? ROI numbers from fleets using full electric is roughly 2-2.5 years with no grant money.



What is the difference in cost now for the all-electric versus a comparable diesel school bus? 2 - 2.5 years would be astonishing to recover costs, but I was under the impression that the upfront cost was quite a large difference. Perhaps that has changed in the past couple of years.

Let's give a scenario where a diesel 48 passenger puts on 60,000 miles over 2.5 years (which is well above average). At 8 MPG, that bus would have used 7,500 gallons of fuel, at a cost of $29,992.5 ($3.999/gal). On top of that you'd need to add lube, oil, filter changes, etc which would add some cost obviously.

I will say, some of these HYBRID buses (not electric, the diesel-electric hybrids), are a ridiculous waste of money. I was at a meeting recently where a college is proud to announce their hybrids get 8-8.5 MPG. An improvement of .5-1 MPG. That's a sad excuse of taxpayer grant money, especially when it comes time to replace the batteries in a few more years!


Edited by - RichBusman on 04/01/2013 3:15:50 PM
Go to Top of Page

FrankP
Senior Member

51 Posts

Posted - 04/01/2013 :  4:10:11 PM  Show Profile  Visit FrankP's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The perceived savings from a hybrid vehicle gets spent in a few years on new batteries!! More and more "Greenies" are finding this out the hard way. It's simple math, really.

Edited by - FrankP on 04/01/2013 4:10:49 PM
Go to Top of Page

C.HARDY
Advanced Member

338 Posts

Posted - 04/02/2013 :  9:15:15 PM  Show Profile  Click to see C.HARDY's MSN Messenger address  Reply with Quote
They always go back to the old ways.......

"Hardybusman"
Go to Top of Page

matts4290
Advanced Member

220 Posts

Posted - 04/05/2013 :  7:38:45 PM  Show Profile  Visit matts4290's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I'm on board with the idea of a new gas option, because as stated, gas engines are so much better now than what mechanics in 1985 had to work with. I've considered buying a gas bus.

Now this may be my management degree speaking, but I also like to think about time value of money. Saving 8-10k per bus knocks off a lot of principle and interest off a bus payment, and I bet the money I save now will still be greater than inflated costs in the future for repairs as opposed to investing the extra money now on a diesel. It doesn't take long to rack up repair costs on the exhaust treatment equipment.

Either choice, I dont think lifetime costs are really that far apart, especially when you factor in time value of money.

We can't all be conventional!
http://www.youtube.com/user/matts4290
Go to Top of Page

JustinB
Advanced Member

United States
490 Posts

Posted - 04/06/2013 :  1:43:42 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The largest maintenance item on the exhaust system is teh EGR Valve. DPFs on non SCR/DEF units are expensinve to own maintain and run. With the SCR Systems, the DPF has very little do do and has increased DPF reliability and dropped DPF operating costs in an exponential manner. SCR Systems have also cut down on issues related to the EGR System.

Some manufacturers were, at one point exploring higher SCR rates and eliminating EGR entirely. They could technicly meet the spec and the test... barely. The efficiency and reliability gains would have been huge. I do wonder if other life cycle sales played into the decisions not to go that way.

It may be a worthwhile aftermarket conversion to deliver a higher SCR-rate/EGR-delete that complies with Particulate and NOx regulations.

I may not know the answer but I can usually find who does.
Go to Top of Page

JRob
Senior Member

176 Posts

Posted - 04/06/2013 :  2:16:16 PM  Show Profile  Visit JRob's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://www.cvdealer.co.uk/2012/09/scania-follows-iveco-down-scr-only-route-for-euro-6/

Here is a link regarding Scania's work to meet Euro 6 (roughly equivalent to current EPA10). They have followed Iveco's lead in using SCR-only to comply with those standards.

Remember when Navistar was telling everyone Scania was going with EGR-only to meet standards as a way to prove they weren't alone? Guess that wasn't exactly the truth.
Go to Top of Page

08 Thomas EF
Top Member

523 Posts

Posted - 04/07/2013 :  3:01:49 PM  Show Profile  Visit 08 Thomas EF's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Well that's good news! My question is, how much more DEF does an SCR-only engine use, and what's the difference price-wise up front compared to EGR/SCR? Cheaper?

Also, don't forget that the Blue Bird/GM conventional was being made with gas engines up until much more recently... 10-ish years ago? How were those? Engines have come a long way since even 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.

Edited by - 08 Thomas EF on 04/07/2013 3:04:51 PM
Go to Top of Page

JustinB
Advanced Member

United States
490 Posts

Posted - 04/08/2013 :  1:28:48 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The egr/scr engines are art about 2-5% of fuel consumed depending on the engine and rate of EGR.

The SCR only engines seemed to be bouncing around in the 6-8% of fuel consumed.

I may not know the answer but I can usually find who does.
Go to Top of Page

DrivesBlueBirds
New Member

5 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2013 :  8:17:53 PM  Show Profile  Visit DrivesBlueBirds's Homepage  Reply with Quote
From the perspective of a route driver:
I've driven both gas and diesel buses on my route... All rural, all hills, eight hour days at about 140 miles.
Gas: GMC/Blue Bird
Diesel: International/Blue Bird (T444E)

The gas bus on a good day, unloaded, will do about 6 MPH up a hill with a 55 MPH speed limit... 8% grade. The diesel gets down to maybe 35 when loaded, does 50 unloaded.
Coming down the grade I need the compression the diesel provides or I basically ride brakes.

I've driven both Propane and Diesel Visions as well, the Rousch V10 is a gutless power suck and burns way too much fuel. We have "fuelers" for the propane buses, as such I manage to need two buses to keep going all day versus one diesel bus that I can fuel during a layover every three.
As far as DEF - it needs some every 400 miles, and we've not really noticed the cost difference from the older gas buses.

Diesel MPG: 10
Gas: 3.2 (I have to fuel at both ends of the route, which gets kinda creative; high school hates unloading to fuel during the winter)
Propane: I don't know the tank capacity, but I get about 70 miles per fill, and it's on fumes (or so I'm told).

I need a diesel bus, I stop on hills and need to get back moving. It's hard enough that we stop in traffic for our students - don't make us go 49 MPH under the speed limit when we could only have to be doing 20 under. It's embarrassing and what's infinitely worse - unsafe!

There will always need to be a diesel bus market in my eyes.


Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
 


School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums © 2013 School Bus Fleet Magazine Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000